Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#51

Post by MPSFounder »

tgma wrote: post #42
MPSFounder wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most interesting thing I see is people overestimate how resilient the system is. Unfortunately, this is at the whim of a president, who with a majority in the court, dictates the law. With a ban or at his whim, even legal residents can find themselves out. We tend to think the system is resilient to this, but ultimately it really isn't. Scholars cannot even agree on whether these tech workers are entitled to the…

The system is actually quite resilient. What you are describing is a specific impact the system might have on someone's situation. That makes a specific situation non-resilient, not the system. Everyone in the whole world who is on a visa knows that is not the most resilient situation, by definition. Also, it is well-settled that visa is a discretionary benefit. Green card is more nuanced, but still not a panacea. So…

Except the people I cited were legal permanent residents and not "visitors" or "solely here as students". A legal permanent resident is by definition a national. In most forms, you will see US citizens/nationals refer to born or naturalized citizens AND legal residents. So your point is fabricated.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#52

Post by tzs »

tacticalturtle wrote: post #27
brcmthrowaway wrote: post #18

If you are on H1b, buy a burner phone before you leave and enter the country. Should he fine.

If they’re checking phones, having a burner phone with no or few contacts seems like a great way to arouse suspicion at the border.

Anyone returning to the US necessarily had to earlier leave the US for some other country or countries.

If you are asked upon returning the US why you have a burner phone with few contacts say that it is because you didn't trust one or more of those other countries.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#53

Post by tgma »

jasonjayr wrote: post #49
tgma wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system is actually quite resilient. What you are describing is a specific impact the system might have on someone's situation. That makes a specific situation non-resilient, not the system. Everyone in the whole world who is on a visa knows that is not the most resilient situation, by definition. Also, it is well-settled that visa is a discretionary benefit. Green card is more nuanced, but still not a panacea. So…

Sure it's discretionary. But to (a) Revoke it with no warning (b) Instantly making your presense illegal, and you a criminal, and due to your new criminal status(c) immediatly abducting you by masked, unidentified "officers" in an official capacity and sending you on a plane anywhere but here, seems to, I don't know? "stir the pot" as you say? These revocations could be done far more graciously than they are. It cert…

I mean, I was discussing the law, now we pivot to emotions? The "masked" guys immediately showed their badges if we are talking about the same incident. When you come to the US on a visa, you should not be under any illusions that is not the case. In fact, a US visa is not even guarantee of entry to the US as you are reminded when you get one.

I am not aware if any other country behaves differently if they want a foreigner gone. It's not a right to be in another sovereign country.

Regardless, this has pretty much nothing to do with the resilience of the system at large.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#55

Post by tgma »

MPSFounder wrote: post #51
tgma wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system is actually quite resilient. What you are describing is a specific impact the system might have on someone's situation. That makes a specific situation non-resilient, not the system. Everyone in the whole world who is on a visa knows that is not the most resilient situation, by definition. Also, it is well-settled that visa is a discretionary benefit. Green card is more nuanced, but still not a panacea. So…

Except the people I cited were legal permanent residents and not "visitors" or "solely here as students". A legal permanent resident is by definition a national. In most forms, you will see US citizens/nationals refer to born or naturalized citizens AND legal residents. So your point is fabricated.

> A legal permanent resident is by definition a national

You just pulled this from your ass. Absolutely not true.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#56

Post by simonw »

sjtgraham wrote: post #34

[flagged]

H1B is a dual-intent visa, which means holders are allowed to pursue permanent residency (upgrading them to an immigrant by the US legal definition) by applying for a green card.

Most people use the term "immigrant" for people who have chosen to live in another country without considering the "non-immigrant" status of their visa.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#57

Post by MPSFounder »

MPSFounder wrote: post #51
tgma wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system is actually quite resilient. What you are describing is a specific impact the system might have on someone's situation. That makes a specific situation non-resilient, not the system. Everyone in the whole world who is on a visa knows that is not the most resilient situation, by definition. Also, it is well-settled that visa is a discretionary benefit. Green card is more nuanced, but still not a panacea. So…

Except the people I cited were legal permanent residents and not "visitors" or "solely here as students". A legal permanent resident is by definition a national. In most forms, you will see US citizens/nationals refer to born or naturalized citizens AND legal residents. So your point is fabricated.

I would also disagree very much with your point including for visitors. Individuals visiting America value our free speech. Renouncing it in favor of a foreign country (most of those arrested were deported for anti-Israel sentiment), is not something we should be proud of. It makes me sad that fellow Americans turn down those who wanted to be here, in favor of a hostile nation that couldn't care less about any American and that has gained immensely from grift on our taxes.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#58

Post by MPSFounder »

tgma wrote: post #55
MPSFounder wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the people I cited were legal permanent residents and not "visitors" or "solely here as students". A legal permanent resident is by definition a national. In most forms, you will see US citizens/nationals refer to born or naturalized citizens AND legal residents. So your point is fabricated.

> A legal permanent resident is by definition a national You just pulled this from your ass. Absolutely not true.

I stand corrected. US nationals refers to something else, but is sometimes used to include permanent residents alongside citizens. I am not familiar with the terminology, but my point stands. A legal permanent resident is very different from the situation you are citing, and I think if you believe they are not entitled to free speech (in particular, for offending a foreign country), we have a much bigger problem here.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#59

Post by tomohelix »

tgma wrote: post #45
tomohelix wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until they declare nonresidents are not entitled to properties in the US and seize all bank accounts and 401k, USSR style. The scariest thing, and most absurd to me, is that even though I made that joke just 1 minute ago, now that I think about it, it is not completely impossible in this current political climate... I dread to think about what the US will be 10 years from now. Trump is not the problem. He is a s…

There's a huge difference between not being able to buy properties and seizing them. The former is already in place to some degree in various forms including anti-money-laundry and sanction-prevention pretexts: https://www.kvue.com/article/news/politics/texas-legislature... The latter is far more overreach but US already practices Civil Asset Forfeiture in other contexts, even for US Citizens, nothing new.

Comments or opinions like yours are the reasons why I think my hypothetical scenario is possible.

It is too easy to view everything as "nothing new, already done in some way" and ignore the slow boil, especially when they are not directly affected or ideologically opposed to it. That is how we get people clamoring for the government to post pictures of chained people marched into extrajudicial prisons without due process.

All I can say is that while some people will be insulated from the consequences, if the situation keeps escalating, do not bet on you being one of those privileged few.

Re: Tech companies are telling immigrant employees on visas not to leave the U.S.

#60

Post by dboreham »

MPSFounder wrote: post #44
BrenBarn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The law is unfortunately very vague and thus open to interpretation (which is ultimately subject to the commander in chief, the current clown) That is it exactly. The US legal/governmental system is a house of cards that has been running for at least 150 years on a bunch of wink-wink-nudge-nudge assumptions that both sides were too scared to test or even acknowledge. An ounce of prevention might have been worth a p…

The truth is much of it could have been prevented (court packing was one idea that might have been unpopular, but there are many other ideas that could have been acted upon). We live with consequences of failures of the Democratic party for the last decade. Had Ruth Ginsberg been pressured to retire after her numerous health issues, Roe v Wade would never have been overturned (it was a 1 vote swing). Had primaries oc…

Freedom and justice should not depend on these kind of game show tactics. The system should be more resilient. Unfortunately it isn't due to the culture and social norms of the country.
Post reply on HN